The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Juerg von Geitz against Edmond de Rothschild [Suisse] S.A. and two individuals, ruling that the Irish courts lacked jurisdiction. Mr Justice Cregan found that the claim was, in substance, related to a contract between the bank and Waldeck Limited, which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Swiss courts.
The judgment, delivered on 24 April 2023, concerned the defendants’ application to strike out the case for lack of jurisdiction and to set aside service, alongside Mr von Geitz’s application to amend his plenary summons.
Mr von Geitz alleged that he made protected disclosures about the bank and suffered detriment after it terminated an agency agreement with Waldeck. He claimed lost salary as a Waldeck employee and lost dividends due to Balthazar Holdings, which held a majority stake in Waldeck. The defendants disputed that the Irish courts could hear the case.
The court considered the claim under the 2007 Lugano Convention. It found that the Waldeck agreement and its termination were central to the pleaded claim, even though Mr von Geitz framed it as a claim for detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act. The agreement required disputes to be heard by courts in Geneva. The judge found that the clause applied to the type of claim brought and that the Irish courts therefore had no jurisdiction.
The court also concluded that the claim did not establish jurisdiction in Ireland under the Convention’s rule for tort claims. It found that the termination notice was sent to Waldeck’s registered office in Gibraltar, and that the alleged harm to Mr von Geitz was an indirect consequence of losses arising from the termination. The judge described the pleaded personal and reputational damage as inadequately pleaded.
On service, the judge rejected the defendants’ challenge. He found that their solicitors had accepted service of the summons in July 2020, despite errors in the plaintiff’s later attempt to amend it without the court’s permission. The court also granted Mr von Geitz liberty to amend the summons in the form subsequently put before it.
The court’s orders were that service was valid, the plaintiff could amend the summons, and the proceedings were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment did not determine the underlying allegations of detriment on their merits.